For all those thinking this is a major loss of customers for Sky TV, Foxtel lost over 100000 in the same period and they have much lower pricing, much better online options, and a lot more content than Sky.

I think you missed my point. I was effectively saying that the NZRU could get bigger money if they wanted to take the game solely to where it made the most money and forget about their NZ market. Sky don't care about NZ rugby, other than as a mechanism to generate money. The only reason NZRU does do stuff here in NZ is because it has an obligation to, probably written in its constitution or some other similar document.

OK let's break down some numbers for those of you who would like Sky to be cheaper.

705,000 people have Sky. Last year they made 115 Million dollars, which works out at $148 per subscriber, of profit per YEAR, or $12.33 per month.

Let's just assume for a moment, that the shareholders don't want any return on their investment. If Sky decides to go insane and make no profit and then drops subscriptions by $12.33 a month, how many of you are going to be happy with that much less? Not many I'd wager, because let's say the average punter pays $100, that's only a relatively small discount.

The reality is that Sky isn't making massive profits, so if they substantially drop their revenues by offering a discount of 50% which is what I see most people are saying they think Sky is worth when they complain, then they would be out of business in a matter of 2-3 years I'd imagine.

It's time for a reality check. There isn't a way for you to have what you want, on an ongoing basis for 50% of what you pay now, with Sky's current expenses the way they are, and I am not certain what percentage content is, but I'd wagers it's easily their biggest expense, so even if they found a cheaper distribution method, even if they trimmed wages or sacked people etc) then they would still have to pay for content.

I think to some degree, if you want to complain, you need to talk to content providers.

Bottom line is, I'd love Sky to be cheaper, but in reality, I can't see it happening anytime soon. Having access to 50 Channels, 24 hours a day, ability to record in HD, 4 Channels at the same time, plus on demand content they are adding etc, works out at $3 a day.

If you don't see the value in that, unsubscribe, but I don't think Sky are ripping consumers off in NZ.

Is John Fellet a fool for his comments, does he have his head in the sand? Yes, I believe so on both counts. He is not the leader Sky needs, but I don't think any leadership is magically going to be able to offer the content available via Sky substantially cheaper until they can rid themselves of high content fees or satellite coverage fee's.

Good post.

Before I agree with you, :-), JF isnt the be all and end all of Sky. There is a a Board of Directors. Surely there is no way that he and they see Sky falling over, and why, but choose to do nothing?

Your numbers. Profit per cust used to be about $15, its now less, as for the first time, there has been a large drop, 5% of subscribers. Its been a very sticky product, and still is. I looked up the broadcast costs from the financial reports, 100 million. Thats not just the leased 7 transponders, but lets say it is. (We can offset dish depreciation which would drop if they dumped Optus). Lets assume that CDN annual costs are 20 million (no idea, might be 2 might be 32) Saving 80 million for 800,000 subscribers is $8 a month. Lets keep the profit, and reduce prices as we are now in the 2017 days not the 80's old tech. $8 a month cheaper.

So thats my dump Optus ideas blown out of the water.

Content costs are 350 million, thats $36 a month, not much to save there either. 60% of that is sport

Maybe all they can do is trim costs, centralise to one brick and mortar office and warehouse, dump staff, save the $8 when Optus is renewed due to it already being written off/SVOD only, and reset the lineup to 2017, Basic is cheap, other high content costs will not be cheap. Run sport as a seperate channel?

If you don't see the value in that, unsubscribe, but I don't think Sky are ripping consumers off in NZ.

Thousands don't see value and are cancelling their subscriptions and sky are blaming pirating for losing subscribers.

Other companies are charging less, and yes they have lower cost structures, so Sky is going to have to find a way to deal with it.

There are non money things Sky could do to improve user experience to but they seem to move very slowly. (Like making HD on demand content available)

Thousands don't see value because of what Netflix etc. have set up as a pricing standard of around $15 per month. That is not feasible for sports. Plus, Netflix has been in debt for a while now...

NF has now made a good profit, 178 million on just under 100 million subscribers. This "standard and accepted" pricing that everyone is now happy with , equates to $1-87 per month profit per subscriber

hairy1: NF has volume. An ever decreasing subscriber pool is not the answer. Costs are fixed. The subscriber volume needs to grow. That's the only solution.

It cannot grow, its already at 50%, or less now market share, and the decrease over the years has been very minimal, even this year its 5% which is large, but its not a fall from the sky.

There is no room to increase prices

Moving to SVOD only is by my rough calc, $8 a month, although there will be more with being able to dump brick and mortar and staff

Decreasing other costs wont be significant

Decreasing content purchases can't happen

So on all that, the only option is to increase subscribers, but there is no room. NZ is too small, and as Sky is compared to $14 per month competing services (even though they rarely overlap) thats what tyhe public want. A huge price reduction, there is no room for that. If Sky always had 25% of the market, there is room, but its been 50% for years , its already at its maximum market level. As @networkn stated, if they dropped the profit and ran at break even, that doesnt help much either, its still far too much for the public now that they can get $14 alternatives. Yes, NF has volume, NZ never will, to provide a Sky type service at a low low cost

Before I agree with you, :-), JF isnt the be all and end all of Sky. There is a a Board of Directors. Surely there is no way that he and they see Sky falling over, and why, but choose to do nothing?

Your numbers. Profit per cust used to be about $15, its now less, as for the first time, there has been a large drop, 5% of subscribers. Its been a very sticky product, and still is. I looked up the broadcast costs from the financial reports, 100 million. Thats not just the leased 7 transponders, but lets say it is. (We can offset dish depreciation which would drop if they dumped Optus). Lets assume that CDN annual costs are 20 million (no idea, might be 2 might be 32) Saving 80 million for 800,000 subscribers is $8 a month. Lets keep the profit, and reduce prices as we are now in the 2017 days not the 80's old tech. $8 a month cheaper.

So thats my dump Optus ideas blown out of the water.

Content costs are 350 million, thats $36 a month, not much to save there either. 60% of that is sport

Maybe all they can do is trim costs, centralise to one brick and mortar office and warehouse, dump staff, save the $8 when Optus is renewed due to it already being written off/SVOD only, and reset the lineup to 2017, Basic is cheap, other high content costs will not be cheap. Run sport as a seperate channel?

JF isn't the sole reason Sky is suffering of course not, his board is responsible too, but as CEO, there are many things he could have done he has not done. His personal communication is God awful, maybe the worst I have seen ever. Sky's communication with it's customers, is awful, truly awful as well.

Customers in my experience will put up with a fair bit if they feel valued and communicated with, I don't know many Sky customers who feel valued. Customer service at Sky is really horrible.

When Sky's online platforms don't deliver as promised, no apology, no acknowledgement.

It's not fair to compare Sky to NF etc, as they are not directly comparable products. For *some* people they compete on content but Sky's coverage is significantly better, it's content pool is MUCH wider. Until recently NF had no offline mode.

Before I agree with you, :-), JF isnt the be all and end all of Sky. There is a a Board of Directors. Surely there is no way that he and they see Sky falling over, and why, but choose to do nothing?

Your numbers. Profit per cust used to be about $15, its now less, as for the first time, there has been a large drop, 5% of subscribers. Its been a very sticky product, and still is. I looked up the broadcast costs from the financial reports, 100 million. Thats not just the leased 7 transponders, but lets say it is. (We can offset dish depreciation which would drop if they dumped Optus). Lets assume that CDN annual costs are 20 million (no idea, might be 2 might be 32) Saving 80 million for 800,000 subscribers is $8 a month. Lets keep the profit, and reduce prices as we are now in the 2017 days not the 80's old tech. $8 a month cheaper.

So thats my dump Optus ideas blown out of the water.

Content costs are 350 million, thats $36 a month, not much to save there either. 60% of that is sport

Maybe all they can do is trim costs, centralise to one brick and mortar office and warehouse, dump staff, save the $8 when Optus is renewed due to it already being written off/SVOD only, and reset the lineup to 2017, Basic is cheap, other high content costs will not be cheap. Run sport as a seperate channel?

JF isn't the sole reason Sky is suffering of course not, his board is responsible too, but as CEO, there are many things he could have done he has not done. His personal communication is God awful, maybe the worst I have seen ever. Sky's communication with it's customers, is awful, truly awful as well.

Customers in my experience will put up with a fair bit if they feel valued and communicated with, I don't know many Sky customers who feel valued. Customer service at Sky is really horrible.

When Sky's online platforms don't deliver as promised, no apology, no acknowledgement.

It's not fair to compare Sky to NF etc, as they are not directly comparable products. For *some* people they compete on content but Sky's coverage is significantly better, it's content pool is MUCH wider. Until recently NF had no offline mode.

Mr Fellet is also on the Board as an Executive Director

MikeRetired IT Manager. The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Before I agree with you, :-), JF isnt the be all and end all of Sky. There is a a Board of Directors. Surely there is no way that he and they see Sky falling over, and why, but choose to do nothing?

Your numbers. Profit per cust used to be about $15, its now less, as for the first time, there has been a large drop, 5% of subscribers. Its been a very sticky product, and still is. I looked up the broadcast costs from the financial reports, 100 million. Thats not just the leased 7 transponders, but lets say it is. (We can offset dish depreciation which would drop if they dumped Optus). Lets assume that CDN annual costs are 20 million (no idea, might be 2 might be 32) Saving 80 million for 800,000 subscribers is $8 a month. Lets keep the profit, and reduce prices as we are now in the 2017 days not the 80's old tech. $8 a month cheaper.

So thats my dump Optus ideas blown out of the water.

Content costs are 350 million, thats $36 a month, not much to save there either. 60% of that is sport

Maybe all they can do is trim costs, centralise to one brick and mortar office and warehouse, dump staff, save the $8 when Optus is renewed due to it already being written off/SVOD only, and reset the lineup to 2017, Basic is cheap, other high content costs will not be cheap. Run sport as a seperate channel?

JF isn't the sole reason Sky is suffering of course not, his board is responsible too, but as CEO, there are many things he could have done he has not done. His personal communication is God awful, maybe the worst I have seen ever. Sky's communication with it's customers, is awful, truly awful as well.

Customers in my experience will put up with a fair bit if they feel valued and communicated with, I don't know many Sky customers who feel valued. Customer service at Sky is really horrible.

When Sky's online platforms don't deliver as promised, no apology, no acknowledgement.

It's not fair to compare Sky to NF etc, as they are not directly comparable products. For *some* people they compete on content but Sky's coverage is significantly better, it's content pool is MUCH wider. Until recently NF had no offline mode.

Ive never had any bad times with them, they answer the call, deal with it, that's it, but I rarely call them, there is rarely a need. For me at least, it just works

But I cant see now, where they can go, going full digital and dumping Optus wont help much. NZ is too small. It always was, but IMO Sky has a very good across the board offering, but these days its directly compared to $15 services, thats now how the public see it.

I have never had a problem with their Contact Centre, usually quick and get the job done, my main issue with Sky is it seems OK for say 4-6 months then with the exception of Sport and Free to air channels it is just a mass of low bitrate cycling repeats. I have never bothered with Soho so I cannot comment on that.

MikeRetired IT Manager. The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

I have never had a problem with their Contact Centre, usually quick and get the job done, my main issue with Sky is it seems OK for say 4-6 months then with the exception of Sport and Free to air channels it is just a mass of low bitrate cycling repeats. I have never bothered with Soho so I cannot comment on that.

I am not happy that Food TV the only channel other than Sport 1 2 and 3 I watch, is still in std def and now cycles *3* times a day. That means at most 8 hours of "fresh" content is viewable in 24 hours. This on a day to day basis doesn't bother me, as I never, ever have 8 hours in a row to watch TV, however when I holiday in NZ, usually xmas time, where I want to see lots of food shows, 24 hours is a long time esp if you have food tv on in the background and you are seeing episodes 2-3 times.

First world problems, I acknowledge, however, this is my current bugbear.

I have never had a problem with their Contact Centre, usually quick and get the job done, my main issue with Sky is it seems OK for say 4-6 months then with the exception of Sport and Free to air channels it is just a mass of low bitrate cycling repeats. I have never bothered with Soho so I cannot comment on that.

I am not happy that Food TV the only channel other than Sport 1 2 and 3 I watch, is still in std def and now cycles *3* times a day. That means at most 8 hours of "fresh" content is viewable in 24 hours. This on a day to day basis doesn't bother me, as I never, ever have 8 hours in a row to watch TV, however when I holiday in NZ, usually xmas time, where I want to see lots of food shows, 24 hours is a long time esp if you have food tv on in the background and you are seeing episodes 2-3 times.

First world problems, I acknowledge, however, this is my current bugbear.

My wife rages about Food TV, it was her favourite now she reckons is just dopey Jamie Oliver, baking contests and endless repeating repeats of repeats that have been repeated repeatedly

MikeRetired IT Manager. The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.